The entire front page of Courier Mail a month ago was devoted to...

The entire front page of Courier Mail a month ago was devoted to alleging a handful of (named) firms were too deep in AusAid's pockets, has done little harm to either COF or CDD. Today's editorial has pros and cons for these 2 firms.

Time to challenge the virtuous aura around aid.
From: The Australian July 13, 2010 12:00AM

As our spending increases, proper auditing is essential
WORLD Vision chief executive Tim Costello is right to suggest that the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami was a chaotic happening that made the emergency aid response difficult. Few natural disasters of recent times match the complexity of an event that killed 230,000 people in 14 countries. But that should not deter Australians asking hard questions about how our aid money - whether from direct donations or via the federal budget - is spent. In this context, a report from researchers at RMIT and Monash universities, Colombo University in Sri Lanka and Madras University in India, and reported in The Australian yesterday, raises some legitimate issues. The report argues that much of the $8 billion collected around the world for the tsunami relief effort was wasted because of hasty reconstruction, for example, that did not consider the big picture of community development.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related CoverageTsunami aid funds 'wasted' by rivalry
The Australian, 1 day ago
UN seat behind aid boost
The Australian, 10 days ago
Government adviser paid more than PM
Adelaide Now, 3 Jun 2010
Millions diverted to fund glossy go-round
Adelaide Now, 24 May 2010
Africa aid doubles in Rudd's UN bid
Courier Mail, 24 May 2010
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
The report provides a window into an industry about which Australians should be better informed. By 2015, the government, which is committed to raising our aid to 0.5 per cent of gross national income, will be budgeting for about $8bn to be channelled through AusAID each year. Yet public discussion is often curtailed by the virtuous aura that tends to surround aid. It is only when a scandal erupts that much public attention is paid to the issues, increasing the risk of a negative reaction rather than a careful analysis of the problems. Indeed, an encouraging aspect of this 385-page report is that it was commissioned by AusAID as part of the agency's recent efforts to increase research and monitoring.

While a huge aid effort was essential in the tsunami, the research findings underline the extent to which positive publicity about emergency relief can be so important to non-government agencies in terms of raising their profile and helping their regular - as well as their crisis - fundraising campaigns. It is not surprising that this can lead to competition as organisations attempt to demonstrate their efficiency and rapid response to tragic events. Clearly, this is often essential, given the urgency about providing basic shelter and food, but as the report suggests, the broader development framework can be overlooked.

Equally, while many people assume that money donated outside a crisis situation is used on direct aid, the reality is that aid dollars are also used for advocacy on issues such as climate change, for example, which some might deem political. In a case that could have an impact on many charitable organisations, the High Court is considering an appeal by the small aid monitoring group AidWatch, which was stripped of its favourable tax status in 2006 because of its political activism.

AusAID will soon be one of the government's biggest agencies, facing a huge challenge as it dispenses a growing budget. In February, The Australian's Asia-Pacific editor Rowan Callick revealed AusAID was paying some aid workers in Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu up to $500,000 a year (albeit with that money paying for accommodation, security and airfares). His story highlighted the challenges not just of finding people with expertise in development aid, but in ensuring Australians, who have been generous on aid issues, continue to trust their aid dollars are being put to good use.